In re Whitney's Estate

New York Supreme Court

In re Whitney's Estate

15 N.Y.S. 468, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 899, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3284

DecidedJuly 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 468 (In re Whitney's Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Whitney's Estate, 15 N.Y.S. 468, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 899, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3284 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

The petitioner claims to hold a note for $600, upon which there is interest due from March 1, 1886, against Seth Whitney, deceased. As such creditor he presented a petition asking for a judicial settlement of the accounts of the administrators. The administrators deny the debt. It appears that the claim was presented to the administrators in June, 1888, and it was finally rejected in July, 1889. The note was given in 1877, and was apparently barred by the statute of limitations when Whitney died. The claim is to be revived by a payment which is disputed. An administrator cannot allow a claim which is barred by the statute, and, while it was along time before the claim was finally rejected, it was never really admitted. Under the [469]*469circumstances the surrogate’s order that the claim be deemed a disputed claim and the accounting postponed until after the claim is established, was just and proper, and his decree should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barnard, P. J.

The petitioner claims to hold a note for $600, upon which there is interest due from March 1, 1886, against Seth Whitney, deceased. As such creditor he presented a petition asking for a judicial settlement of the accounts of the administrators. The administrators deny the debt. It appears that the claim was presented to the administrators in June, 1888, and it was finally rejected in July, 1889. The note was given in 1877, and was apparently barred by the statute of limitations when Whitney died. The claim is to be revived by a payment which is disputed. An administrator cannot allow a claim which is barred by the statute, and, while it was along time before the claim was finally rejected, it was never really admitted. Under the [469]*469circumstances the surrogate’s order that the claim be deemed a disputed claim and the accounting postponed until after the claim is established, was just and proper, and his decree should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y.S. 468, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 899, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3284, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-whitneys-estate-nysupct-1891.